Commerce clause abuse

TownHall.com ^ | Wednesday, November 5, 2003 | Walter E. Williams

[Labyrinthos]

The 14th amendment. Aren't you a lawyer?

Yes I am. The 14th Amendment applies to state action in that it prohibits a state and its political subdivisions from discriminating based upon race, national origin, religion etc. and that's the basis for 42 USCS 1981 et seq. I'm talking about that part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits me from dicriminating in the operation of my private business, the sale/rental of private housing, the service of food in a private restaurant, and the letting of rooms in a private inn or other place of accommodation.

[Dane]

Typical Dane tactics, smear by association

Uh I didn't smear anybody.

You smeared yourself by leaving out the last verse of the song "Fool on the Hill" in your reply #56.

This whole exchange is interesting, because it shows that those who take up the torch of the Libertarian cause, are bereft of the concept of humility, IMO.

[jmc813]

I woke up one morning and it just struck me, I had to join the crusade to end the unConstitutional WOD! It's curious. I don't use dope and wouldn't use dope even if it were legal. I don't encourage people to use dope and never would even if it were legal. But I have this overwhelming need to fight a crusade to make dope legal.

Have you straightened yourself out on the Second Amendment as well?

[Atlas Sneezed]

The vast majority of the Civil Rights Laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, restaurants, and places of public accommodation and other businesses open to the public is based upon the Commerce Clause. If not the Commerce Clause, then what would be the constitutional basis for the civil rights laws as applied to individuals?

---

Let the states decide. Even black conservaitve commentators tend to acknowledge that racism is its own punishment (because one forgoes qualified applicants or customers) and that modern society will effectively end any business that is racist.

Or pick another part of the Constitution to torture. Race discrimination is not an interstate commerce issue, it is an equal protection issue.

[CWOJackson]

I wasn't unstraight on the second ammendment. I still don't have any need for an anti-aircraft gun and I still have no desire to bayonet anything.

Perhaps when the man starts kicking in my door in their illegal no-knock raids I'll change my mind.

But I don't want to get distracted from my crusade to assist the meth lab running freedom fighters!

[CWOJackson]

Death to the pigs!

Die Honkey!

Burn baby burn!

Hell no we won't go!

Give me liberty and give me meth!

[Labyrinthos]

Let the states decide. Even black conservaitve commentators tend to acknowledge that racism is its own punishment (because one forgoes qualified applicants or customers) and that modern society will effectively end any business that is racist. Or pick another part of the Constitution to torture. Race discrimination is not an interstate commerce issue, it is an equal protection issue.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out how the commerce clause is used to justify lawsthat have nothing to do directly with interstate commerce. BTW, the equal protection clause does not provide a constitutional predicate for the civil rights act as enforced against the private sector, because the 14th Amendment only prohibits the states and their political subdivisions from depriving a person of equal protection of the laws.

[philman_36]

Uh I didn't smear anybody.
You have no idea what smear by association really is, do you?
You smeared yourself by leaving out the last verse of the song "Fool on the Hill" in your reply #56.
Et tu, Dane?
You smeared yourself by leaving out the very last verse of the song "Fool on the Hill" in your reply #59.
You also have no idea of the concept of "baiting someone" either.
Wait a sec...didn't I learn that from you? I stand corrected.

[jmc813]

So the 2nd Amendment enumerates the right to keep and bear arms that CWOJackson has a desire to own. Gotcha.

[Dane]

You also have no idea of the concept of "baiting someone" either. Wait a sec...didn't I learn that from you? I stand corrected

IOW, you are now a victim of that mean old Dane.

LOL! Whew dude, keep on posting, you are posting Hillary's case with each and every one of your posts, IMO.

[CWOJackson]

Not necessarily. So far my rights to purchase any firearm I desire has not been infringed.

[philman_36]

Do you consider me a Libertarian even though I am a card-carrying member of my county GOP?

And he never gives an answer .....

[philman_36]

IOW, you are now a victim of that mean old Dane.
I'm not a victim of anyone, especially you. You play that role so much better than I, as this thread shows.
Whew dude, keep on posting, you are posting Hillary's case with each and every one of your posts, IMO.
You're such a victim, just like her.

[Dane]

Do you consider me a Libertarian even though I am a card-carrying member of my county GOP?

And he(Dane) never gives an answer ....

In all honesty, I believe that Jeff(jmc813) is a bit politically confused. He spouts off George Soros rhetoric, and yet says he's a Republican.

For the time being I will give Jeff the benefit of the doubt.

[jmc813]

I noticed. I think the logic is that we agree with the LP on the WOD issue, so therefore we are Libertarians. Maybe we should start calling those guys Democrats since they agree with the DNC on the Assault Weapons Ban.

[philman_36]

...but I wasn't the one who started out with the ad hominems.
You're such a victim, just like her. Know what I mean?

[jmc813]

I have the EXACT same opinion on the drug war as the owner of this site. End the Federal WOD and let the states decide for themselves what their drug policy is. With the exception of pot, I am wary of legalizing hard drugs. Is Jim politically confused?

[philman_36]

Maybe we should start calling those guys Democrats since they agree with the DNC on the Assault Weapons Ban.
Hmmmmm...you might be onto something there...
Perhaps Democrats is too soft of a term though.

[Dane]

I'm not a victim of anyone, especially you. You play that role so much better than I, as this thread shows

LOL! LOL! It seems that you all who take up the Libertarian torch are not only bereft of humilty, but bereft of short term memory(I.E your reply #88 of this thread).

[philman_36]

You can't even give a straight answer. How pathetic!

He spouts off George Soros rhetoric, and yet says he's a Republican.
You spout off Socialist rhetoric yourself and yet you say you're a Republican. What gives?